Note: Under federal law, a three-judge federal trial court hears constitutional challenges to federal or state legislative districts or requests for preclearance, and these decisions are appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal appellate courts therefore tend to get involved only when there is no constitutional challenge or judicial preclearance request, or when only local districts are challenged.

City of Concord v. Gardner, No. 217-2012-cv-00273 (N.H. Super. Ct., Merrimack): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 24, 2012).
The latest: The petition for relief was filed on April 24. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.

Wallner v. Gardner, No. 216-2012-CV-00380 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Northern): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 25, 2012).
The latest: The petition for relief was filed on April 25. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.

Town of Gilford v. Gardner, No. 211-2012-cv-00139 (N.H. Super. Ct., Belknap): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 30, 2012).
The latest: The petition for relief was apparently filed on April 30. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.

Quandt v. Gardner, No. 216-2012-CV-00412 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Northern): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 30, 2012).
- Motion for preliminary injunction (Apr. 30).
The latest: The petition for relief was apparently filed on April 30. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.

Davidson v. City of Cranston, No. 1:14-cv-00091 (D.R.I.): a challenge in federal court to the city council districts of Cranston, Rhode Island, based on an unconstitutional dilution of equal representation stemming from the city's failure to adjust for the imprisoned population when drawing districts.
- Complaint (Feb. 19, 2014).
- Motion to dismiss (Mar. 13), opposition (Mar. 31), reply (Apr. 7).
The latest: The complaint was filed on February 19, 2014, and a motion to dismiss was filed on March 13.

On January 10, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court consolidated all litigation challenging the state legislative lines. On January 25, the court rejected the state legislative maps, returning them to the state's politician commission for redrafting.

North Carolina v. Holder, No. 1:11-CV-01592 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of North Carolina's legislative and congressional districts.
- Complaint (Sept. 2, 2011).
- Statistics for congressional, senate, house districts.
The latest: After the plan was precleared on November 1, the court dismissed the complaint on November 8.

The latest: On February 6, 2012, the court dismissed claims based on partisan gerrymandering, on allegedly improper severing of Asheville from other similar communities, on unnecessary division of municipal boundaries, and on violations of several other state statutes; it preserved claims based on racial gerrymandering and unnecessary splitting of counties and precincts, in alleged violation of the state and federal constitutions. On July 8, 2013, after a trial, the court rejected the remaining challenges.

On December 19, 2014, the state Supreme Court affirmed. The court found that drawing districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act did not automatically amount to consideration of race warranting strict scrutiny, and that the state had a strong evidentiary basis for concluding that the districts it drew were sufficiently tailored means to satisfy the Voting Rghts Act. The court also found that the challenged districts met state constitutional requirements. Plaintiffs have sought certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

On January 25, 2013, the Supreme Court resolved a discovery dispute, finding that a state statute did not waive attorney-client and work-product privileges for documents involved in the preparation of redistricting plans.

NC State Conference of Branches of the NAACP v. North Carolina, No. 11-CVS-16940 (N.C. Super Ct., Wake County): an action in state court challenging the state legislative and congressional districts on state and federal constitutional grounds, including allegations of improper purpose, unnecessary division of counties and precincts, and racial gerrymandering.
- Complaint (Nov. 4, 2011), 1st amended complaint (Dec. 9).
The latest: The complaint was filed on November 4, 2011, and an amended complaint was filed on December 9. On December 19, the case was consolidated with Dickson v. Rucho, above.

Harrell v. Holder, No. 1:11-CV-01454 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of South Carolina's state House districts.
- Complaint (Aug. 9, 2011).
The latest: After the plan was precleared on October 11, plaintiffs dismissed the complaint on October 13.

Harrell v. Holder II, No. 1:11-CV-01566 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of South Carolina's congressional districts.
- Preclearance submission to DoJ.
- Complaint (Aug. 30, 2011).
The latest: After the plan was precleared on October 28, plaintiffs dismissed the complaint on October 31.

McConnell v. United States, No. 1:11-CV-01794 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of South Carolina's state Senate districts.
- Complaint (Oct. 7, 2011).
The latest: After the plan was precleared on November 14, plaintiffs dismissed the complaint on November 15.

The latest: The complaint was filed on November 11, and an amended complaint was filed on November 23; several motions to dismiss were filed on December 19. On January 19, the court dismissed the State, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and legislative committee chairs from the case, but denied motions to dismiss by the Elections Commission, House Speaker, and Senate President. On March 9, the court rejected the remaining claims, and dismissed the case. On October 1, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed. On August 29, 2013, plaintiffs moved for relief from the dismissal in light of Shelby County v. Holder; that motion was denied by the trial court on Mar. 10, 2014, with an appeal summarily dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 6.

Ceasar v. Jindal, No. 6:12-cv-02198 (W.D. La.) & No. 13-30521 (5th Cir.): an action in federal court challenging Louisiana's congressional districts, alleging racial gerrymandering and violations of the Voting Rights Act.
- Trial court
- Motion for preliminary injunction (app.) (Aug. 16, 2012).
- Motion for default judgment (Nov. 7).
- Order dismissing case (Mar. 18, 2013).
- Court of appeals
- Notice of appeal (Apr. 18).
- Order dismissing case for absence of docketing fee (June 14).
The latest: An initial pleading, styled as a motion for preliminary injunction, was filed on August 16, 2012. On March 18, 2013, the court noted that the plaintiff's ability to file without fees had been revoked after litigation in an unrelated case, and that he had been barred from filing further litigation until costs and fees were paid in a separate unrelated case. The court dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice to refiling once the prior fees were paid.

La. House of Representatives v. Holder, No. 1:11-cv-00770 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of Louisiana's state House districts, in parallel to the state's attempt to preclear maps through the DOJ's administrative process.
- Complaint (Apr. 21, 2011).
The latest: After state House districts were precleared, the case was dismissed on June 21, 2011.

Buck v. Barbour, No. 3:11-cv-00717 (S.D. Miss.): a challenge in federal court to the unequal population of current congressional districts, based on legislative inability to agree on congressional districts in timely fashion.
- Complaint (Nov. 21, 2011) and amended complaint (Dec. 7).
- Motion for preliminary injunction (Dec. 8).
The latest: The complaint was filed on November 21, 2011, with an amended complaint December 7. On December 19, this case was consolidated with Smith v. Hosemann, above.

Frost v. Grimes, No. 12-CI-00180 (Ky. Circuit Ct., Franklin County): an action in state court asking the court to draw congressional districts, based on the legislature's failure to do so.
- Complaint (Feb. 9).
- Voluntary dismissal.
The latest: The complaint was filed on February 9; after the legislature drew congressional lines, the case was dismissed.

Herbert v. Kentucky, No. 3:13-cv-00025 (E.D. Ky.): an action in federal court challenging the state legislative districts as unconstitutionally malapportioned, based on the legislature's failure to draw compliant districts after the last Census.
- Complaint (May 10, 2013).The latest: The complaint was filed on May 10, 2013. On June 27, this case was consolidated with Brown v. Kentucky, above.

The latest: On April 6, the court dismissed the case, finding the pleadings insufficient to support an inference of intentional discrimination under the Equal Protection clause or of a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

State ex rel. Ohioans for Fair Districts v. Husted, No. 2011-1646 (Ohio Sup Ct.): a challenge in state court to the law containing the congressional plan, which purports to limit the ability to submit the plan to a referendum, as other state laws are subject to referendum.
- Complaint and supporting affidavit (Sept. 28, 2011).
- Challengers' merits brief and supporting evidence (Oct. 12).
- Respondent SoS merits brief and supporting evidence (Oct. 12).
- Reply briefs of challengers, intervenor General Assem., respondent SoS (Oct. 13).
- Decision granting writ (Oct. 14).
The latest: On October 14, the court unanimously granted the writ, allowing the possibility of a referendum to the state's congressional plan. If a referendum is to qualify, signatures must now be collected (from 6% of the state's electors) and filed by December 25, 2011. The new plan won't be legally valid until December 25, and if enough signatures qualify by that point, will continue to be invalid until a referendum is held on the plan.

Ward v. Kasich, No. 2011-CVH-1847 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas, Clermont County): a challenge in state court to the congressional districts, based on the fact that a referendum renders the most recent plan at least temporarily invalid, and based on the fact that existing districts (from 2001) are unequally populated.
- Complaint (Oct. 17, 2011).
- Intervenor Latourette's complaint (Nov. 14).
- Answer, counterclaim, and crossclaim (Dec. 14).
- Intervenor Ohioans for Fair Districts et al. motion to dismiss (Dec. 9).
- Settlement agreement (Jan. 9).
- Entry of dismissal without prejudice (Jan. 12).
The latest: The complaint was filed on October 17, and a motion to dismiss was filed on December 9. The court's docket notes that a settlement agreement was reached on January 9, and the case was dismissed without prejudice on January 12.

Clark v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 2014-CH-07356 (Ill. Circuit Ct., Cook County, Chancery): a challenge in state court to a prospective ballot initiative to change the redistricting process, as beyond the initiative power permitted by the state constitution.
- Complaint (Apr. 29, 2014).
- Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on pleadings (May 20), intervenor opp. (June 3).
- Intervenors' motion for judgment on pleadings (May 20).
- Opinion finding proposed initiative unconstitutional (June 27).
The latest: On June 27, 2014, the court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Illinois Constitution permits only those ballot initiatives that are both "structural and procedural" changes to government, in their entirety; while redistricting was deemed a proper topic for a ballot initiative, the court found that provisions requiring the independence of those performing the redistricting were not proper initiative subjects.

Brady v. Madigan, No. _____ (Ill. Sup Ct.): a challenge in state court to the constitutionality of the random selection of a tiebreaker for the state's backup commission, in the event that the legislature fails to draw state legislative districts. The suit also asks the Illinois Supreme Court to prohibit redistricting until the court rules on the challenge to the state procedure.
- Complaint (May 10, 2011).
- Introductory brief (May 10, 2011).
The latest: On June 15, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to take the case.

Cross v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 113840 (Ill. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in the state Supreme Court to the state legislative districts, based on alleged violations of the state constitution.
- Complaint (Feb. 8, 2012).
- Order denying complaint as untimely (June 7).
The latest: On June 7, the court denied permission to file a complaint challenging the state legislative plan in an original action in the state Supreme Court, on the grounds that such a challenge was untimely.

Baumgart v. Wendelberger, No. 2:01-cv-00121 (E.D. Wis.): in the 2000 cycle of redistricting, a federal court drew state legislative lines. One of the plaintiffs in that case then attempted in 2011 to seek relief from that judgment, on the grounds that the court's lines had become malapportioned after the 2010 census.
- Motion for relief from judgment (June 9, 2011).
- Defendant's response (July 13) and plaintiff's reply (July 27).
The latest: On July 28, the court denied the motion.

Voces de la Frontera v. Brennan, No. 2:11-cv-01011 (E.D. Wis.): a challenge in federal court to the state legislative districts, based on alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act in the Milwaukee area.
- Complaint (Oct. 31, 2011).
The latest: On November 22, this case was consolidated with Baldus v. Brennan, above.

Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732 (Haw. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state Senate districts, challenging the alleged failure to properly remove (under the state constitution) nonresident students and military from the apportionment base before redistricting.
- Petition for writ of mandamus (Oct. 10, 2011).
- Answer by state (Nov. 18), governor (Nov. 21), response by office of elections (Dec. 28).
- Reapportionment commission's motion for summary judgment (Nov. 23).
- Governor's opposition to motion for summary judgment (Dec. 9), reply (Dec. 12).
- Plaintiff's motion to strike MSJ (Dec. 1), opposition (Dec. 2).
- Order striking motion for summary judgment (Dec. 22).
- Order (Jan. 4) and opinion (Jan. 6) granting petition for writ of mandamus.
The latest: On January 4, the court granted the petition for writ of mandamus, striking the state legislative plan for failure to properly remove nonresident students and military from the apportionment base, as required by the state constitution. The state's politician commission will have to draft a new plan.

Matsukawa v. State of Hawaii 2011 Reapportionment Comm'n, No. SCPW-11-0000741 (Haw. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative districts, challenging the alleged failure to properly remove (under the state constitution) nonresident students and military from the apportionment base before redistricting.
- Response (Nov. 18).
- Reapportionment commission's motion for summary judgment (Nov. 23).
- Plaintiff's opposition to motion for summary judgment (Nov. 28), reply (Dec. 2).
- Order striking motion for summary judgment (Dec. 22).
- Order (Jan. 4) and opinion (Jan. 6) granting petition for writ of mandamus.
- Commission's motion for clarification and/or reconsideration (Jan. 13).
- Order denying motion for reconsideration (Jan. 20).
The latest: On January 4, the court granted the petition for writ of mandamus, striking the state legislative plan for failure to properly remove nonresident students and military from the apportionment base, as required by the state constitution. The state's politician commission will have to draft a new plan.

Denney v. Ysursa, No. 39570-2012 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the Secretary of State's refusal to replace commissioners nominated by the Speaker of the Idaho House and the chairman of the Idaho Republicans, at the request of those two officials.
- Attorney General's interpretation of authority to remove commissioners (Jan. 20, 2012).
- Petition for writ of mandamus (Jan. 24) and supplement (Jan. 25).
- Order dismissing petition (Jan. 25).
The latest: On January 25, the Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners had not established a clear right under state law to the relief they were seeking -- an order requiring the Secretary of State to replace the two identified commissioners.

In re Constitutionality of Idaho Legislative Reapportionment Plan of 2002, No. 39127-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the constitutionality of the existing districts, given the first independent commission's failure to submit proposed districts before the relevant deadline.
- Complaint (Sept. 7, 2011).
- Order denying request for writ of mandate to reconvene commission (Sept. 9).
- Brief in support of petition (Sept. 23).
- Order declaring 2002 districts unconstitutional (Oct. 6).
The latest: On September 9, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that it had no power to require the independent commission to reconvene to draw districts for the current cycle, but noted that the Secretary of State could issue an order convening a new commission. Separately, on October 6, the court determined that 2002 districts were unconstitutionally malapportioned based on the most recent Census.

Frasure v. Idaho Redistricting Commission, No. 39128-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court requesting declaratory relief concerning the interpretation of state redistricting law, and requesting that the court adopt congressional and legislative districts.
- Complaint (Sept. 7, 2011).
- Order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The latest: On September 9, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that it had no original jurisdiction to clarify state law (such a case would have to proceed first in trial court), and dismissed the case.

Twin Falls County v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, No. 39373-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative plan, based on allegedly insufficient attention to county boundaries.
- Petition (Nov. 16, 2011), response (Dec. 21).
- Petitioners' brief (Dec. 27).
- Amicus curiae brief (Dec. 21).
- Decision striking down state plan (Jan. 18).
The latest: On January 18, over a strong dissent, the state Supreme Court struck down the state redistricting plan, finding that it unlawfully split more counties than necessary. The state's independent commission was directed to reconvene in order to draw a substitute plan.

Benewah County v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, No. 39432-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative plan, based on multiple provisions of state law, including unnecessary division of counties.
- Petition (Dec. 7, 2011) and brief in support (Dec. 28).
- State's brief (Jan. 6).
The latest: Upon the decision in Twin Falls County, above, this case was apparently dismissed as moot.

Miller v. First Judicial Court, No. 59322 (Nev. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in the state supreme court filed by the state's Secretary of State to the state trial court's alleged refusal to decide questions of law (particularly questions under the Voting Rights Act) in the Guy v. Miller case, above, in timely fashion.
- Petition for writ of mandamus (Oct. 3, 2011).
- League of Women Voters' motion to compel (Oct. 6), denied (Oct. 6).
- Motions for stay by SOS (Oct. 6), real parties in interest (Oct. 6), denied (Oct. 7).
- Briefs by SOS (Oct. 14), League of Women Voters (one (Oct. 19) and two (Oct. 24)).
- Responses by Garza (Oct. 24), Guy et al. (Oct. 24), King et al. (Oct. 24).
- Reply (Nov. 3).
- Motion to dismiss (Nov. 4).
- Order denying petition for writ of mandamus (Nov. 4).
The latest: On October 7, the court denied a motion to stay district court proceedings, with the Guy v. Miller litigation and this case proceeding in parallel. After the Guy v. Miller court approved final maps on October 27, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, finding a direct appeal from that Guy v. Miller ruling to be the proper forum to adjudicate whether the court should have drawn lines, or whether the legislature has power to establish districts despite the governor's veto.

Teijeiro v. Schneider, No. 3:11-cv-00330 (D. Nev.): a challenge in federal court to the unequal population of current districts, based on legislative inability to agree on congressional and state legislative districts within the 2011 legislative session.
- Complaint (May 9, 2011).
- Motion to dismiss (Sept. 26).
- Voluntary dismissal (Dec. 2).
The latest: On December 2, at plaintiffs' request, the case was dismissed.

Meeker v. Kitzhaber, No. CV-110197 (Ore. Circuit Ct.): a challenge in state court to the unequal population of current congressional districts, based on legislative inability to agree on a congressional district plan.
- Complaint (May 18, 2011).
The latest: The case was dismissed on July 12, 2011.

Hall v. Gessler, No. 11cv3463 (Denver Dist. Ct.): a challenge to the unequal population of current congressional districts, based on legislative inability to agree on district lines within the 2011 legislative session.
- Complaint (May 10, 2011).
The latest: This case was consolidated with Moreno v. Gessler, above.

Duffee v. State Question 748, No. O-109127 (Okla. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state's backup commission, passed by initiative in 2010 and specifying a role for the Democratic and Republican parties, rather than simply the state's largest two parties. The latest: On February 28, 2011, the Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to take original jurisdiction in the case. The case will proceed, if at all, through the trial courts first.

Wilson v. Fallin, No. O-109652 (Okla. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state Senate reapportionment, on state constitutional grounds.
- Petition for review and accompanying brief (July 7, 2011).
The latest: On September 1, the Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed the challenge, finding its own original jurisdiction limited to review of state legislative plans on the basis of equal population alone. Any further challenge to the state Senate reapportionment on other grounds must proceed through the trial courts first. The court's opinion leaves it unclear whether, in such challenges, the state constitutional requirement to consider factors like compactness and economic and political interests is an independently justiciable mandate.

Wilson v. Oklahoma, No. CJ-2011-6249 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma County) & No. SD-110042 (Okla. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state Senate reapportionment, on state constitutional grounds.
- Trial court
- Petition (Sept. 6, 2011).
- Intervenor Bingman's motion to dismiss (Sept. 12).
- Intervenor state House motion to dismiss (Sept. 21).
- Entry of judgment dismissing case (Oct. 25).
- Oklahoma Supreme Court
- Appellant's petition in error (Nov. 1).
- Response by Sec. Ziriax, Sen. Bingman, state House (Nov. 21).
- Opinion affirming trial court and rejecting challenge (Jan. 17).
The latest: On October 11, the trial court dismissed the case. On January 17, the state Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the state constitution requires only that the legislature consider factors like compactness and the preservation of political units to the extent feasible, and holding that the challenge had not alleged a deficiency in the extent to which the legislature considered such factors.

Hunzie v. Maxfield, No. 179-562 (Wyo. Dist. Ct., Laramie County): a challenge in state court to the state's legislative plan, based on alleged violations of the state and federal constitution, including allegedly insufficient attention to county representation.
- Complaint (April 5, 2012) and amended complaint (June 13).
- State's motion for summary judgment (Aug. 6, 2014).
The latest: The complaintwas filed on April 5, 2012, and an amended complaint was filed on June 13. The state filed a motion for summary judgment on August 6, 2014.

The latest: On December 26, 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to an allegation of an equal population violation involving malapportionment of districts involving distinct local legislative delegations, but not with respect to racial gerrymandering claims. The court also dismissed a partisan gerrymandering claim, with leave for plaintiffs to amend in order to offer a justiciable standard; after plaintiffs did so, the court denied plaintiffs summary judgment on this claim on April 5, 2013, and granted defendants summary judgment on this claim on July 30. The decision with respect to the equal population violation was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on December 2 for lack of jurisdiction.

On June 17, the state defendants moved for summary judgment against all plaintiffs on all remaining counts; the court dismissed a claim based on the impact of redistricting on the composition of local delegations given difference on local bills, but denied summary judgment on the racial discrimination claims, sending the case to trial. On December 20, 2013, the court ruled for the state defendants, rejecting all remaining claims (including the racial gerrymandering challenge).

On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court opinion with respect to the racial gerrymandering claim, and remanded. The Court found that the trial court incorrectly analyzed whether race predominated in the drawing of particular districts, and that Alabama's mechanically demographic approach to race did not amount to legitimate compliance with the Voting Rights Act. (That analysis closely follows my own.) The trial court will now reassess plaintiffs' racial gerrymandering challenges; the Court's opinion strongly suggests that at least some of the challenged districts will be found to be unconstitutional.

Georgia v. Holder, No. 1:11-CV-01788 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of Georgia's state legislative and congressional districts, and in the alternative, requesting a declaration that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
- Complaint (Oct. 6, 2011).
- Motion to dismiss (Dec. 23).
- Order dismissing the case (Jan. 3).
The latest: After districts were precleared, the case was dismissed on January 3.

These cases pertain to cases brought by local jurisdictions involving important challenges under the Voting Rights Act, including challenges in the Supreme Court to the constitutionality of various portions of the Voting Rights Act.

Due to the volume of filings, information on these cases, including the Supreme Court cases challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, is located on a separate litigation page, here.

The information contained on this website is for informational purposes only, and should not be considered part of an attorney-client relationship. This information is not a substitute for legal advice tailored to specific circumstances in any given jurisdiction.